1. It's simple and free.
2. Your username cannot be used by guests.
3. You can personalise your profile picture.
4. Comments remain editable for 5 mins after submitting.
5. There are no captchas when you submit a comment.
6. You are informed of replies to your comments.
7. Your comments are archived for future reference.

It annoys me when idiots do not even know what the term "theory" means. IT ISN'T AN IDEA PLUCKED OUT OF THIN AIR! It's based on vast amounts of evidence, cross-examination, peer-reviewed and agreed on by every scientist worth their salt.
If this had come about during the 1600s to the extent it has now, evolution would be called a LAW!
People as stupid as Beezo not to be put down.

It annoys me when idiots do not even know what the term "theory" means. IT ISN'T AN IDEA PLUCKED OUT OF THIN AIR! It's based on vast amounts of evidence, cross-examination, peer-reviewed and agreed on by every scientist worth their salt.
If this had come about during the 1600s to the extent it has now, evolution would be called a LAW!
People as stupid as Beezo not to be put down.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(3054 days ago)

you guys have no idea what your talking about. the crux of your argument is reference to some film or simply saying "it's been answered before"... yeah, great way to win someone over to your point of view. but if you did actually listed to what he said you'd realize that making informed decisions, based on scientific fact makes perfect sense, rather than following a 2,000 year old fiction book or making up ideas from thin air

you guys have no idea what your talking about. the crux of your argument is reference to some film or simply saying "it's been answered before"... yeah, great way to win someone over to your point of view. but if you did actually listed to what he said you'd realize that making informed decisions, based on scientific fact makes perfect sense, rather than following a 2,000 year old fiction book or making up ideas from thin air

The theory of evolution is not scientific fact based on proof, it's only another theory based on specks of evidence, and accepted because many "scientists" are too proud to simply say "we just don't know the answer at this time." Plus they favor materialistic answers because it makes them final authority on the subject. I see darwinism as speculation at best and biblical creationism as entirely myth without credible foundation.

The theory of evolution is not scientific fact based on proof, it's only another theory based on specks of evidence, and accepted because many "scientists" are too proud to simply say "we just don't know the answer at this time." Plus they favor materialistic answers because it makes them final authority on the subject. I see darwinism as speculation at best and biblical creationism as entirely myth without credible foundation.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Mark(3053 days ago)

The Theory of evolution is a theory suggesting how evolution happens as the same way the theory of gravity is trying to explain why there is gravity not suggesting that gravity exists because it is quite obvious it does!

The Theory of evolution is a theory suggesting how evolution happens as the same way the theory of gravity is trying to explain why there is gravity not suggesting that gravity exists because it is quite obvious it does!

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(3054 days ago)

"specks of evidence"
If evolution hasn't been proven by the staggeringly vast array of evidence, then nothing can be. In that sense, the fact that evolution is a "theory" is not a reason to discredit it.

"specks of evidence"
If evolution hasn't been proven by the staggeringly vast array of evidence, then nothing can be. In that sense, the fact that evolution is a "theory" is not a reason to discredit it.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Beezoo(3054 days ago)

What a narrow-minded, shallow-thinking fool. He needs to watch the videos "Holographic Universe" and "What the Bleep Do We Know". The people behind those movies demonstrate far more depth of thought and understanding than Dawkins ever does.

What a narrow-minded, shallow-thinking fool. He needs to watch the videos "Holographic Universe" and "What the Bleep Do We Know". The people behind those movies demonstrate far more depth of thought and understanding than Dawkins ever does.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Dan(3054 days ago)

Such irony. Dawkins' "knockout argument" is paint thin and without a whiff of probative substance, has been answered decisively many times -- then he complains that his opponents don't listen!

And what are those arguments Dan? People always say that, but they can never really say what those arguments are

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
prokaryoticeukaryote(1881 days ago)

Latest comment: Yes, he needs to watch a video about an extremely unconfirmed, presently unfalsifiable physics hypothesis, and another video that makes demonstrably false claims about human perception, and water molecules, because nothing embodies the spirit of science more than ideological propaganda!

Latest comment: Yes, he needs to watch a video about an extremely unconfirmed, presently unfalsifiable physics hypothesis, and another video that makes demonstrably false claims about human perception, and water molecules, because nothing embodies the spirit of science more than ideological propaganda!

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(3054 days ago)

I looked up 'Holgraphic Universe'. Got to the point where they talked about "only 5 senses" and realised that it was twaddle - completely insubstantial twitterings by someone trying to come with a new science for those who want to go a little alternative. Yes, all we know of the world is our perceptions of it, but if it has the same material effect as a real world, then, for all intents and purposes it is real. Hardly an earth-shattering conclusion - just tripping people up over terminology.

I looked up 'Holgraphic Universe'. Got to the point where they talked about "only 5 senses" and realised that it was twaddle - completely insubstantial twitterings by someone trying to come with a new science for those who want to go a little alternative. Yes, all we know of the world is our perceptions of it, but if it has the same material effect as a real world, then, for all intents and purposes it is real. Hardly an earth-shattering conclusion - just tripping people up over terminology.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2907 days ago)

So let me get this straight - a talking snake in a magic garden is fact, but millions of years of chronicled evolution, and irrefutable DNA evidence, combined with incredibly detail cosmological evidence somehow comes up short. How terrible it must be to fear death so deeply.

So let me get this straight - a talking snake in a magic garden is fact, but millions of years of chronicled evolution, and irrefutable DNA evidence, combined with incredibly detail cosmological evidence somehow comes up short. How terrible it must be to fear death so deeply.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Beezoo(3054 days ago)

His whole argument is based on the premise that there are only two possibilities - the biblical account of creation and Darwin's. I believe he continues with that premise because he makes money arguing with people who are greater fools than he is. The truth is that both theories are very flimsy at best.

His whole argument is based on the premise that there are only two possibilities - the biblical account of creation and Darwin's. I believe he continues with that premise because he makes money arguing with people who are greater fools than he is. The truth is that both theories are very flimsy at best.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(3054 days ago)

Not at all. In fact, he repeatedly uses other religions to demonstrate that there is no reason to believe in Christianity.

Beezo
creationism is not a theory, there is nothing to back it up except the bible. It is not even strong enough to be called a Hypothesis.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

plavyn(3052 days ago)

The main point of the argument is that all factual evidence points to the theory of evolution as the correct mechanism for the changing nature of species, even including the creation of new species. what's even more important, is that as new evidence comes to light (e.g. genetics) it also fits the theory. If someone can actually point to ANYTHING AT ALL which contradicts the theory of evolution i'll be very happy to hear them out, but sadly, i'm guessing, all we'll get is more of the same overarching comments that have nothing to do with anything

The main point of the argument is that all factual evidence points to the theory of evolution as the correct mechanism for the changing nature of species, even including the creation of new species. what's even more important, is that as new evidence comes to light (e.g. genetics) it also fits the theory. If someone can actually point to ANYTHING AT ALL which contradicts the theory of evolution i'll be very happy to hear them out, but sadly, i'm guessing, all we'll get is more of the same overarching comments that have nothing to do with anything

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Arand(3054 days ago)

I'm getting more and more convinced that letting Dawkins represent the theory of evolution is like letting Cartoon Network represent the film industry.
Pretty darn obvious why creationists won't have nothing of it.
The "Beyond Belief 2006" vid here on site is a very good kernel

I'm getting more and more convinced that letting Dawkins represent the theory of evolution is like letting Cartoon Network represent the film industry.
Pretty darn obvious why creationists won't have nothing of it.
The "Beyond Belief 2006" vid here on site is a very good kernel

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
just my opinion(3052 days ago)

Why cant we all just accept that we as people just cant agree on most things let alone how the universe was created, let us just live our lives the best we can and keep our belefs to ourselves.